CRL.REV.P.(MAT.)/602/2026 of SHRI ANKIT Vs MRS. SHILPI on 30 September 2026

1. The present petition assails an order dated 23.04.2026, passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi in MT No. 321/2025, titled Shilpi vs. Ankit, being a petition filed by the respondent under Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNSS’).

2. The said order issues an ad interim direction for payment of an amount of Rs.7,500/- per month by the petitioner to the respondent as ad interim maintenance.

3. The said amount is payable with effect from the date of the application filed before the Family Court till the disposal of the interim maintenance application.

4. The petition has been filed along with an application for condonation of delay of 30 days in filing the present petition. Even assuming that the

KUMAR PATEL

delay in filing deserves to be condoned, this Court finds no ground to interfere with the impugned ad interim arrangement.

5. It is noticed that the impugned order does not finally determine the disputed questions that arise for consideration. It provides temporary financial assistance pending adjudication of the interim maintenance application. The petitioner’s various objections, particularly those concerning the very solemnisation of the marriage, the parties’ respective incomes and the respondent’s ability to maintain herself are matters for the Family Court to consider, in accordance with law, at the appropriate stage.

6. Further, the respondent’s educational qualifications and modest earnings, would not, by themselves, disentitle her to maintenance. It is also well settled that, unlike in matrimonial proceedings, strict proof of marriage is not necessary in proceedings for maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (now Section 144 of the BNSS).

7. In Rajnesh v. Neha (2021) 2 SCC 324, the Supreme Court has observed as under: “40. The law presumes in favour of marriage, and against concubinage, when a man and woman cohabit continuously for a number of years. Unlike matrimonial proceedings where strict proof of marriage is essential, in proceedings Under Section 125 Code of Criminal Procedure such strict standard of proof is not necessary. xxx xxx xxx

(c) Where wife is earning some income

90. The Courts have held that if the wife is earning, it cannot operate as a bar from being awarded maintenance by the husband. The Courts have provided guidance on this issue in the following judgments.

90.1. In Shailja and Anr. v. Khobbanna, this Court held that merely because the wife is capable of earning, it would not be a sufficient ground to reduce the maintenance awarded by the Family Court. The

KUMAR PATEL

Court has to determine whether the income of the wife is sufficient to enable her to maintain herself, in accordance with the lifestyle of her husband in the matrimonial home. Sustenance does not mean, and cannot be allowed to mean mere survival.

90.2. In Sunita Kachwaha and Ors. v. Anil Kachwaha (2014) 16 SCC 715 the wife had a postgraduate degree, and was employed as a teacher in Jabalpur. The husband raised a contention that since the wife had sufficient income, she would not require financial assistance from the husband. The Supreme Court repelled this contention, and held that merely because the wife was earning some income, it could not be a ground to reject her claim for maintenance.

90.3. The Bombay High Court in Sanjay Damodar Kale v. Kalyani Sanjay Kale while relying upon the judgment in Sunita Kachwaha (supra), held that neither the mere potential to earn, nor the actual earning of the wife, howsoever meagre, is sufficient to deny the claim of maintenance.”

8. Having regard to the modest quantum, limited duration and purpose of the impugned direction, and the fact that the substantive interim maintenance application remains pending, no ground for interference is made out at this stage. At the same time, it is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the contentions raised by the petitioner.

9. The revision petition is, accordingly, dismissed. The Family Court is requested to endeavour to decide the interim maintenance application expeditiously, after hearing both parties.

10. The petition is disposed of in the above terms along with the pending applications.

SACHIN DATTA, J SEPTEMBER 30, 2026/cl,sd

KUMAR PATEL